Federal Judge Who Outlawed Racial Profiling is Victim of Black Mob Violence

originally posted by: freedomSlave

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

University of Minnesota to Stop Using Race in Crime Alert Suspect Descriptions

editions.lib.umn.edu...

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

www.aclu.org...
Here we have no other identifying factors.

ok fair enough I didn't realize her stance on it the issue .. Can't help to shake my head as to why she ever thought that providing the description of race was irrelevant. Thanks for providing a little more story than the op. ETA Not really sure how this is considered racial profiling .

It's liberal PC gone crazy. Racial profiling as it SHOULD be defined, such as pulling someone over for Driving While Black is completely wrong. When correcting a wrong you need to make sure you bring the pendulum to the middle and not let it swing all the way over to the other side.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

How is it ironic?

It should be obvious all blacks should be looked at as criminals. Just like all people from the ME should be considered Muslim and are terrorist. This is the kind of crap that FOX and other neoconservative groups try to get people to believe.

No, it should be obvious that when you are held at gunpoint by 3 black men that you should mention they were black, just like if they were white.

Only fools think that information should be excluded.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think you completely misunderstand that right there.

Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.

I'm no expert, but I believe this to mean the official victim statement should contain physical characteristics like scars, piercings, tats, or at least clothing colors to not be considered profiling. I.e identifiers other than just race.

Unless someone can come up with a copy of the police report with only "black guys robbed us" in it, I'm giving her a pass on this.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: queenofswords

It reminds me of an atheist that rages against a belief in God, but in a shtf scenario, what's the first thing many of them do? Pray.

Have you ever seen this happen?

Or are you simply saying so because you know that it is what you, put in that position, would do yourself?

This is a racist thread, and for all that I uphold the rights of the OP to post it, it is disgusting and contemptible. It is also exactly what we have come to expect from the thread starter.

Yes. I have and I'm sure others have seen this, too, but I actually believe there are no true 100% atheists.

You see this as a racist thread? I see it as an hypocrisy thread. Too many people preach against this or that, but when faced with the very thing they abhor, find that when they are face to face with it, they do the same thing.

That personal attack in your last sentence is disgusting and contemptible, imo.....not you, but your comment about a fellow ATS poster.

This wasn't racial profiling, it was suspect identification. BIG difference.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm no expert, but I believe this to mean the official victim statement should contain physical characteristics like scars, piercings, tats, or at least clothing colors to not be considered profiling. I.e identifiers other than just race.

Unless someone can come up with a copy of the police report with only "black guys robbed us" in it, I'm giving her a pass on this.

Your understanding is correct. This Judge spent her life saying you can NEVER just say race without other identifiers such as those you listed (and I also listed, look back at my post, I said you must use an identifier such as a tattoo). So, what physical characteristics did she use? None according to the story. Which means she spent her life saying what she just did was racist.

Utter crap. Stuff like that sets race relations BACK in my opinion.

originally posted by: intrepid
This wasn't racial profiling, it was suspect identification. BIG difference.

I agree. The ACLU and this Judge do not. This Judge spent her career fighting to make that racial profiling, and thus unacceptable. I quoted the ACLU where under there definition you need an identifier or it's racial profiling, she used no identifiers.

Liberals fight to make her suspect identification racism, and they are winning. I sourced colleges are accepting it and have official policies making this identification racist and can't be used.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm no expert, but I believe this to mean the official victim statement should contain physical characteristics like scars, piercings, tats, or at least clothing colors to not be considered profiling. I.e identifiers other than just race.

Unless someone can come up with a copy of the police report with only "black guys robbed us" in it, I'm giving her a pass on this.

Your understanding is correct. This Judge spent her life saying you can NEVER just say race without other identifiers such as those you listed (and I also listed, look back at my post, I said you must use an identifier such as a tattoo). So, what physical characteristics did she use? None according to the story. Which means she spent her life saying what she just did was racist.

Utter crap. Stuff like that sets race relations BACK in my opinion.

A 911 call isn't a victim statement in a police report, though. I admit I'm only assuming where an official description is determined from, though.

By the way, unless I missed a link somewhere in the article, I don't see a full transcript for the call, either. Taking only two excepts from a 911 call is pretty disingenuous. Why so cherry-picked? Odds are she gave a better description, the article author just didn't want to include it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think you are understanding what you are reading. I see the words you are quoting but it isn't matching what you are saying at all. Read the whole thing, please. It's only a few paragraphs.

Basically a thread to tell the world, the judge was wrong and should have stereotyped all black people as violent individuals.

Of course there are people in the thread declaring it is not racist at all...just pointing out the facts.. yeah sure..

In other words the so called facts are that this person or persons are a representation of all blacks..

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm no expert, but I believe this to mean the official victim statement should contain physical characteristics like scars, piercings, tats, or at least clothing colors to not be considered profiling. I.e identifiers other than just race.

Unless someone can come up with a copy of the police report with only "black guys robbed us" in it, I'm giving her a pass on this.

Your understanding is correct. This Judge spent her life saying you can NEVER just say race without other identifiers such as those you listed (and I also listed, look back at my post, I said you must use an identifier such as a tattoo). So, what physical characteristics did she use? None according to the story. Which means she spent her life saying what she just did was racist.

Utter crap. Stuff like that sets race relations BACK in my opinion.

A 911 call isn't a victim statement in a police report, though. I admit I'm only assuming where an official description is determined from, though.

By the way, unless I missed a link somewhere in the article, I don't see a full transcript for the call, either. Taking only two excepts from a 911 call is pretty disingenuous. Why so cherry-picked? Odds are she gave a better description, the article author just didn't want to include it.

I did say in my first post I was going by the story being accurate.

If this Judge believes it's WRONG to say black without identifiers, and that NOTHING is gained, and it should NOT be done, why did she do it? She did it because she clearly felt something would be gained. She did it because she clearly thought race alone was an important piece of information.

Assuming the story is true, she's a hypocrite. There is value in color. All information has value.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: xuenchen

How is it ironic?

It should be obvious all blacks should be looked at as criminals. Just like all people from the ME should be considered Muslim and are terrorist. This is the kind of crap that FOX and other neoconservative groups try to get people to believe.

Not just trying they are successfully conditioning people to believe it...

a reply to: xuenchen

As much as I hate this new PC garbage, this is not a case of profiling. That's just twisting it into something it's not.

Giving a description of someone committing a crime is not even close to profiling.

It's just more partisan crap IMO.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

Listen you are preaching to the choir, say they are black!!!

The problem is this lady spent her whole life saying you should NOT say they are black.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: xuenchen

As much as I hate this new PC garbage, this is not a case of profiling. That's just twisting it into something it's not.

Giving a description of someone committing a crime is not even close to profiling.

It's just more partisan crap IMO.

I quoted the ACLU saying race should never be part of a description without other identifying factors because it is profiling. This Judge apparently fought for that. So SHE thought it was profiling, yet did it, which shows she knows there is value in it despite her career saying there was no value in it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

Listen you are preaching to the choir, say they are black!!!

The problem is this lady spent her whole life saying you should NOT say they are black.

Uh huh and in a rational state of mind that would make sense. Does she sound like she's in a rational state?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I quoted the ACLU where under there definition you need an identifier or it's racial profiling, she used no identifiers.

Actually she did. She said there were black people with guns

And yeah, I'll be the first to admit that I'm giggling my butt off right now.

I betcha ten bucks they went out and bought a couple of guns too.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think you are understanding what you are reading. I see the words you are quoting but it isn't matching what you are saying at all. Read the whole thing, please. It's only a few paragraphs.

I did. I also showed you where colleges are actually practicing it.

It says exactly what I claimed. I quoted it multiple times. I really do not know why you are having trouble with it, it's crystal clear. Any description of race MUST be followed by other identifying features, this Judge fought to force that opinion on others ... then the first chance she gets she gives Race with no identifying features meaning she does not actual believe what she was preaching.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I saw the pic of the three. One has a tattoo on his right shoulder. Did she see it? Aside from that what other identifiers are there? Remember, this is a person that been frightened. It's not like she's taking notes.

Listen you are preaching to the choir, say they are black!!!

The problem is this lady spent her whole life saying you should NOT say they are black.

Uh huh and in a rational state of mind that would make sense. Does she sound like she's in a rational state?

I do not become racist when I panic, do you? She reverted to her base instinct, which told her there was value in giving a racial description.

Guess what? THERE IS!